KEF Owners Thread - Page 348 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 776Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #10411 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 11:15 AM
Member
 
aoaaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you guys for all your help so far.
I've found out the room I'm putting the speakers in for the next year is 16ft x 17ft
Its an empty room.

Therefore would the Q700 or Q500 be a better bet? TBH I'm more concerned with clarity + bass than volume if that affects it.



KEF Q700 500 (front)
KEF Q600c 270 (middle)
KEF Q300 230 (Rear)
??

Last edited by aoaaron; 05-27-2017 at 11:53 AM.
aoaaron is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #10412 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 12:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Montreal,Canada
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 864 Post(s)
Liked: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
Thank you guys for all your help so far.
I've found out the room I'm putting the speakers in for the next year is 16ft x 17ft
Its an empty room.

Therefore would the Q700 or Q500 be a better bet? TBH I'm more concerned with clarity + bass than volume if that affects it.



KEF Q700 500 (front)
KEF Q600c 270 (middle)
KEF Q300 230 (Rear)
??
Slightly better mids and clarity=Q500
Better bass, more volume=Q700
A pair of Q500's and a good sub would easily fill that room with sound.
I've made my case on both the Q500 and Q700's. Now it's up to you to decide which you prefer.
Going with Q100's as front wouldn't be a bad option since the sub will handle everthing bellow 80-90hz. The Q500 and Q100 will play at practically the same level, the main difference being the Q500 will give a few hz more bass. This would also allow a better budget for the sub.
10k likes this.

Kef Q100 FL/FR, Kef Q200c center, JBL Loft 40 surrounds , JBL SP 150 & Bic F12 subs, Denon AVR710Ws, , Panasonic 50" Plasma, Samsung cable box, Xbox One, Toshiba laptop.
Bedroom: JBL Loft 50 FL/FR , Loft 20 center, JBLSP 150 sub, Pioneer VSX-830K, PS3, 32" Insigna LED.
pase22 is offline  
post #10413 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 12:47 PM
10k
AVS Forum Special Member
 
10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,054
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1775 Post(s)
Liked: 1964
I agree with pase also. Focus on getting as much high and mid range clarity as you can, and pair it with the best audyssey and subwoofer that you can afford.

IMO the q700 and q900 are in kind of an awkward space. Given the bass output they are more or less designed for the strictly 2ch segment of the market, but being a 2.5way design rather than 3way makes it a weird value proposition when compared against 2.1....

For HT where you are probably crossing over at 80-100hz the difference will be nuanced at most between q500-900
10k is online now  
 
post #10414 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 02:06 PM
Member
 
aoaaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you guys! I will opt for the Q500. I think I prefer more clarity. Whenever I watch a film, I always want to be able to hear what people are saying and it can annoy me wen I can't.


Please let me get this straight tho... The Q500's are better at clarity and more 'tight' whilst the Q700s seem to have more bass to them and be more open. So in theory they can run riot in a big room but overpower a small room.

A good subwoofer with the Q500's should then in theory off a clear sound with my subwoofer then compensating and doing well with the bass?




If so, which subwoofer should I get? It doesn't have to be from peter-tyson.co.uk... just a few sub reccomendations I can get from other stores even in the UK. I've realised that bundle doesn't save me much or any money as opposed to buying things separatley so I don't need to be tried to a crappy subwoofer if thats going to be limiting the package.


Q500x2
Q200cx1
Q100x2

AVR-3300
Subwoofer???

Then I'm done? Do I go for Q100s or Q300s as rears?




Please bare in mind I'm a guy who has only ever listened to music from his LED TV speakers!! so I hope I'm in for a treat.

I spoke to my friend on the phone who has a HT and he said dont worry about volume as all these speaker packages will pack enough volume to make neighbours want to kill me. concentrate on clarity and tightness of sound as for the room size, hes sure most speakers will more than do the job.
aoaaron is online now  
post #10415 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 02:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Montreal,Canada
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 864 Post(s)
Liked: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
Thank you guys! I will opt for the Q500. I think I prefer more clarity. Whenever I watch a film, I always want to be able to hear what people are saying and it can annoy me wen I can't.


Please let me get this straight tho... The Q500's are better at clarity and more 'tight' whilst the Q700s seem to have more bass to them and be more open. So in theory they can run riot in a big room but overpower a small room.

A good subwoofer with the Q500's should then in theory off a clear sound with my subwoofer then compensating and doing well with the bass?




If so, which subwoofer should I get? It doesn't have to be from peter-tyson.co.uk... just a few sub reccomendations I can get from other stores even in the UK. I've realised that bundle doesn't save me much or any money as opposed to buying things separatley so I don't need to be tried to a crappy subwoofer if thats going to be limiting the package.


Q500x2
Q200cx1
Q100x2

AVR-3300
Subwoofer???

Then I'm done? Do I go for Q100s or Q300s as rears?




Please bare in mind I'm a guy who has only ever listened to music from his LED TV speakers!! so I hope I'm in for a treat.

I spoke to my friend on the phone who has a HT and he said dont worry about volume as all these speaker packages will pack enough volume to make neighbours want to kill me. concentrate on clarity and tightness of sound as for the room size, hes sure most speakers will more than do the job.
Your friend gave you solid advice and I agree with him 100%.
We would need to know your subwoofer budget in order to make appropriate recommendations.

Kef Q100 FL/FR, Kef Q200c center, JBL Loft 40 surrounds , JBL SP 150 & Bic F12 subs, Denon AVR710Ws, , Panasonic 50" Plasma, Samsung cable box, Xbox One, Toshiba laptop.
Bedroom: JBL Loft 50 FL/FR , Loft 20 center, JBLSP 150 sub, Pioneer VSX-830K, PS3, 32" Insigna LED.
pase22 is offline  
post #10416 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 02:18 PM
Member
 
aoaaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hmmm say from £300-£500

The higher the price, the less likely I'll get the AVR 3300 and opt for the 2300 instead.
AVR wise, would i be best off going for a lesser model AVR and getting a better sub?


Also should I get Q300 or Q100s for rears?

Last edited by aoaaron; 05-27-2017 at 02:36 PM.
aoaaron is online now  
post #10417 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 02:43 PM
10k
AVS Forum Special Member
 
10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,054
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1775 Post(s)
Liked: 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
Then I'm done? Do I go for Q100s or Q300s as rears?

Please bare in mind I'm a guy who has only ever listened to music from his LED TV speakers!! so I hope I'm in for a treat.

I spoke to my friend on the phone who has a HT and he said dont worry about volume as all these speaker packages will pack enough volume to make neighbours want to kill me. concentrate on clarity and tightness of sound as for the room size, hes sure most speakers will more than do the job.
Wow you are in for a treat. I agree with your friend. Also, grab the Q100 for surrounds. Beyond needing to make reasonable noise, surrounds contribute very little to the overall soundtrack in most movies. For movies the most important is the center channel, since most dialog comes almost exclusively through it. Front L/R are close behind. I'd focus any extra money on those areas and just make sure you get something competent for surrounds.
10k is online now  
post #10418 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 02:45 PM
Member
 
aoaaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10k View Post
Wow you are in for a treat. I agree with your friend. Also, grab the Q100 for surrounds. Beyond needing to make reasonable noise, surrounds contribute very little to the overall soundtrack in most movies. For movies the most important is the center channel, since most dialog comes almost exclusively through it. Front L/R are close behind. I'd focus any extra money on those areas and just make sure you get something competent for surrounds.


Thanks, so by centre channel you mean the 200c? Are you saying I should opt for the 600c instead?

Sorry to sound like an idiot! I'm just so lost and trying to piece everything together!
aoaaron is online now  
post #10419 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 02:52 PM
10k
AVS Forum Special Member
 
10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,054
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1775 Post(s)
Liked: 1964
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
Thanks, so by centre channel you mean the 200c? Are you saying I should opt for the 600c instead?

Sorry to sound like an idiot! I'm just so lost and trying to piece everything together!
Yes exactly, and don't worry about asking questions, this stuff is pretty complicated. It's worth it though, in the end you are going to be set for a very long time......until the upgrade addiction kicks in

If you can afford it the 600c is more capable. User @KenM10759 has compared both the q200c and q600c side by side and came away with the conclusion that the 600c is much better. You can search the thread or he might chime in

Last edited by 10k; 05-27-2017 at 02:57 PM.
10k is online now  
post #10420 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 02:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Montreal,Canada
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 864 Post(s)
Liked: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
Hmmm say from £300-£500

The higher the price, the less likely I'll get the AVR 3300 and opt for the 2300 instead.
AVR wise, would i be best off going for a lesser model AVR and getting a better sub?


Also should I get Q300 or Q100s for rears?
The Denon 3300 seems reasonably priced compared to others on the site you linked above. I'd stick with that though the 2300 would be plenty unless you plan to expand beyond 7.1 for which you'd need a separate amp.
BK subs get good reviews are generally well liked on UK forums and are reasonably priced. If you can extend your budget a little, the Monolith plus.
http://www.bkelec.com/HiFi/Sub_Woofe...th-FF_Plus.htm
For a little less but still a good sub, the P12-300SB-DF
http://www.bkelec.com/HiFi/Sub_Woofers/P12300SB-DF.htm

Kef Q100 FL/FR, Kef Q200c center, JBL Loft 40 surrounds , JBL SP 150 & Bic F12 subs, Denon AVR710Ws, , Panasonic 50" Plasma, Samsung cable box, Xbox One, Toshiba laptop.
Bedroom: JBL Loft 50 FL/FR , Loft 20 center, JBLSP 150 sub, Pioneer VSX-830K, PS3, 32" Insigna LED.
pase22 is offline  
post #10421 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 07:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
stash64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Packer country
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post
"Speaker break in" is a concept invented by shameless hucksters to prey on the technically illiterate. It has no basis in fact. Any speaker company that hypes up break in is covering for junk product.

Now, might your ears need a little bit of time to acclimate to something new? Sure.


And what basis in fact are you using to back up your claim that speaker break in is "invented?


Speakers have moving parts and, just on that fact alone, it is highly probable that the sound/performance will change some over time. It's really not that different from break in of an automobile engine. If taken to the extreme (i.e. auto engine with over 100k+ miles or a speaker with 10k+ hours), would it be reasonable to expect the performance to be the same as brand new ?

Sean
stash64 is offline  
post #10422 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 08:49 PM
Senior Member
 
xuniman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoaaron View Post
Hmmm say from £300-£500

The higher the price, the less likely I'll get the AVR 3300 and opt for the 2300 instead.
AVR wise, would i be best off going for a lesser model AVR and getting a better sub?


Also should I get Q300 or Q100s for rears?
aoaaron I have a very lightly used Denon AVR-x3200 that I was going to list for sale, if you're interested send me a PM. It was only used for a couple of months in a rental between houses and has all original packaging. There isn't much difference between it and the 3300 and it will be a lot cheaper.
xuniman is online now  
post #10423 of 10431 Old 05-27-2017, 10:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,629
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 978 Post(s)
Liked: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by stash64 View Post
And what basis in fact are you using to back up your claim that speaker break in is "invented?
The problem with "alternative facts" is that they sound just plausible enough for someone who doesn't actually know anything to wonder if they are in fact true. But ultimately they are just vile propaganda targeting dumb people.

Here's Dr. Floyd Toole's description of the only actual scientific inquiry into the break-in scam known to me:

"In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that all components from wires to electronics to loudspeakers need to 'break in.' Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing extensively about changes in performance that they claim are easily audible in several aspects of device performance. Yet, the author is not aware of any controlled test in which any consequential audible differences were found, even in loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some opportunities for material changes. A few years ago, to satisfy a determined marketing person, the [Harman] research group performed a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was claimed to benefit from 'breaking in.' Measurements before and after the recommended break-in showed no differences in frequency response, except a very tiny change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful lisening tests revealed no audible differences. None of this was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether the marketing person was satisfied by the finding. To all of us, this has to be very reassuring because it means that the performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising the suspension and the deterioration—breaking down—of foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time, moisture, and atmospheric pollutants. It is fascinating to note that 'breaking-in' seems always to result in an improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed, getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek out materials, components, and construction methods that do not change with time. Suppose that the sound did improve over time as something broke in. What then? Would it eventually decline, just as wine goes 'over the hill'? One can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker: 'An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004, broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles. Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a steal at $3200!'"
Toole, Sound Reproduction, at 353
10k and highd3f like this.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #10424 of 10431 Old Yesterday, 06:29 AM
Member
 
modenacart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post
The problem with "alternative facts" is that they sound just plausible enough for someone who doesn't actually know anything to wonder if they are in fact true. But ultimately they are just vile propaganda targeting dumb people.



Here's Dr. Floyd Toole's description of the only actual scientific inquiry into the break-in scam known to me:



"In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that all components from wires to electronics to loudspeakers need to 'break in.' Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing extensively about changes in performance that they claim are easily audible in several aspects of device performance. Yet, the author is not aware of any controlled test in which any consequential audible differences were found, even in loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some opportunities for material changes. A few years ago, to satisfy a determined marketing person, the [Harman] research group performed a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was claimed to benefit from 'breaking in.' Measurements before and after the recommended break-in showed no differences in frequency response, except a very tiny change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful lisening tests revealed no audible differences. None of this was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether the marketing person was satisfied by the finding. To all of us, this has to be very reassuring because it means that the performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising the suspension and the deterioration—breaking down—of foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time, moisture, and atmospheric pollutants. It is fascinating to note that 'breaking-in' seems always to result in an improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed, getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek out materials, components, and construction methods that do not change with time. Suppose that the sound did improve over time as something broke in. What then? Would it eventually decline, just as wine goes 'over the hill'? One can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker: 'An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004, broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles. Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a steal at $3200!'"

Toole, Sound Reproduction, at 353


I think what is really happening is people adapt to the new sound of their new speakers. I have noticed that I liked my new speakers and headphones more after a couple of months of use. I think just because I have gotten use to their sound signatures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DS-21 and 10k like this.
modenacart is online now  
post #10425 of 10431 Old Yesterday, 09:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 5,408
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenM10759 View Post
Not 100% true. While no KEF speakers I've heard require break-in, I know of two reputable speaker makers who do advise break-in and most owners do report they sound better after a certain amount of time. Those would be Dynaudio and Totem.
Any speaker co. which pushes their speaker Beak product gravitates towards the huckster end of the speaker brand spectrum, IMO.

https://totemacoustic.com/en/accessories

They used to have more detail "supporting" the so-called benefits of their Beaks, but they've since smartened up and simplified the description. It still leaves enough there to entice those who would be more easily swayed, but now vague enough to minimize closer scrutiny of their product claim.
CruelInventions is online now  
post #10426 of 10431 Old Yesterday, 09:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 5,408
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 553 Post(s)
Liked: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by modenacart View Post
I think what is really happening is people adapt to the new sound of their new speakers.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people will agree with this in principle, then quickly follow up with the "but" (this didn't apply to me, the sound of my speakers really really did change!).
CruelInventions is online now  
post #10427 of 10431 Old Yesterday, 10:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Montreal,Canada
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 864 Post(s)
Liked: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by modenacart View Post
I think what is really happening is people adapt to the new sound of their new speakers. I have noticed that I liked my new speakers and headphones more after a couple of months of use. I think just because I have gotten use to their sound signatures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Speaker company's don't want you returning their products so they suggest 70+ hours to get used to the sound in case you don't like it hoping you'll just get used to it by then. Typically when I really like the sound of a speaker, it sounds good out of the box and takes only a few hours for my ears to adjust. If it doesn't sound good after a day or two, not the right speaker....time to move on.
DS-21, 10k and postrokfan like this.

Kef Q100 FL/FR, Kef Q200c center, JBL Loft 40 surrounds , JBL SP 150 & Bic F12 subs, Denon AVR710Ws, , Panasonic 50" Plasma, Samsung cable box, Xbox One, Toshiba laptop.
Bedroom: JBL Loft 50 FL/FR , Loft 20 center, JBLSP 150 sub, Pioneer VSX-830K, PS3, 32" Insigna LED.
pase22 is offline  
post #10428 of 10431 Old Yesterday, 07:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
stash64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Packer country
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post
The problem with "alternative facts" is that they sound just plausible enough for someone who doesn't actually know anything to wonder if they are in fact true. But ultimately they are just vile propaganda targeting dumb people.

Here's Dr. Floyd Toole's description of the only actual scientific inquiry into the break-in scam known to me:

The article you quoted is humorous. It appears that the extent of their testing was to measure frequency response and then follow up with “careful listening tests”. Even if they had followed strict scientific method, I don’t think it is plausible to quantify human hearing (or any sense) with just a few tests and certainly not a simple frequency sweep. If that was the case, we should purchase speakers based on frequency response (our eyes) alone and ignore tonal characteristics and transient (dynamic) response.

I also found it humorous that the author mentions engineers seeking out materials that “do not change with time”… in other words, unobtanium. I’m a mechanical engineer myself and material or component selection is always a compromise and an engineer needs to understand how material properties will change over time and take this into account. For instance, rubber compounds have the unusual characteristic of becoming less pliable over time if not worked. This “alternative fact” alone would suggest that a new speaker that sat on a shelf for months may indeed have less transient capability out of the box due to stiffer (than designed) rubber surrounds.

I’m not suggesting that any change in speaker performance will be dramatic, just that it is plausible given the materials used in speakers, moving parts, friction, etc. To apply break-in benefits to amplifiers and processors is a bigger stretch, but I personally try to keep an open mind knowing that no amount of scientific testing will likely prove or disprove “break in” due to the complexity of our hearing and because people have different sensory capabilities.

Also, it’s offensive and a bit arrogant to suggest people are dumb just because they have a different opinion than your own.

Sean
stash64 is offline  
post #10429 of 10431 Old Yesterday, 09:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,629
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 978 Post(s)
Liked: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by stash64 View Post
The article you quoted is humorous. It appears that the extent of their testing was to measure frequency response and then follow up with “careful listening tests”. Even if they had followed strict scientific method,
I infer from the silly tenor or your post that you are unaware of Dr. Floyd Toole, so here's a capsule summary: former Audio Engineering Society President and Gold Medal recipient.

I further infer from the silly tenor of your post that you are unaware Sound Reproduction is basically the lit review of serious high performance audio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stash64 View Post
I don’t think it is plausible to quantify human hearing (or any sense) with just a few tests and certainly not a simple frequency sweep.
Now we see how "alternative facts" get'cha.

The "simple frequency sweep[s]" have nothing to do with "human hearing (or any sense)." Rather, those tests are conducted to quantify any changes in the performance of the DUT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stash64 View Post
Also, it’s offensive and a bit arrogant to suggest people are dumb just because they have a different opinion than your own.
Having an anti-reality "opinion" on a clearly settled matter is IMO contemptible. I don't mind being seen as "offensive and a bit arrogant" to audio mystics, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, truthers, birthers, and similarly mentally defective creatures.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #10430 of 10431 Old Today, 07:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
stash64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Packer country
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked: 91
One “silly” article does not settle a matter in my opinion. It was once considered a settled matter that the earth was flat and we all know how that turned out. I hold to my opinion that a frequency sweep, no matter how precise the measuring tools, is inadequate to define a speaker’s performance. Perhaps that is why the testers resorted to “careful listening”. But I am glad you have it all figured out. I didn’t realize you were the ultimate authority on such a wide range of topics. If an open mind is a mental defect than I will gladly wear that moniker. I hope/believe that most AVS forum members have the same mental defect. And sorry to those members for getting off topic.

Sean
stash64 is offline  
post #10431 of 10431 Old Today, 12:31 PM
Senior Member
 
xuniman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by xuniman View Post
Hello all - I moved into my new house and I'm desinging (shoehorning in) a Home theater into an unused portion of the basement. Due to the configuration I want to go with in-walls for everything.

I've pretty much decided on the KEF CI3160RL-THX for LCR and Ci200QR for everything else, along with a HSU VTF2 Mk3 for the subwoofer. I have a NAD M17/M27 setup to drive 7 channels and will be getting the Atmos upgrade card for it as soon as they release it.

I'm debating 5.1.2 with what I have or adding a 2 channel amp for 5.1.4 or 7.1.2. I've attached the space plan and would welcome any thoughts you folks might have. Does the 5.1.4 give more of a "environment" soundwise that a 7.1.2? I do have a pair of Definitive technologies 6.5" in ceiling speakers I could throw in the mix if the 7.1.4 is really "all that"
After discussions over in the HT build forum I decided to change my mind and go with R300 for L/R, R600c for center and the HSU subwoofer to round out the bottom end. The theater design changed to add a false wall for the acoustically transparent screen. I'm still mulling over getting the Ci200QR speakers for ATMOS. I like my Difinitive BPX bipoles for the rear surrounds (the diffuse soundfield works for me) and I already own the DI 6.5s in ceiling speakers for the side surrounds.

I'm not sure how the Ci200QRs would sound versus the DI 6.5s for side surrounds. What do you folks think about doing a 7.1.2 with the Ci200QR as both ATMOS and side surrounds? Will the timber match be any better with the Ci200's than it would be with the DI 6.5s? Will the weird slanted wall destroy the soundstage? I could turn that wall into a thick curtain. I've attached a picture of the current HT design.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Home Theater plan7.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	99.7 KB
ID:	2161482  

Last edited by xuniman; Today at 12:38 PM.
xuniman is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Tags
Kef , Kef Audio , kef blade 2 , Kef Bookshelf Speaker , Kef C4 Subwoofer Black , Kef Center Channel Speaker , Kef Ls50 2 Way Speaker System , Kef Q100bl Bookshelf Speaker , Kef Q700wa Floorstanding Speaker , kef reference 3 , Kef T Series Floor Stand Pair



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off